Bob Seely MP has spoken in parliament about the hardship faced by thousands of Island women who are affected by the change in legislation to equalise the state pension ages for men and women.
The new rules say that the women – so-called WASPIs – who were mainly born in the 1950s, cannot claim a state pension until 66 when they had over many years been told they would be eligible at 60.
Speaking during oral questions to the Minister for Women and Equalities, Bob said:
“Equalising the pension age has been very painful. We understand the reasons why, but it is very painful for many of my constituents.
“What has the Minister’s department done to mitigate against this and what more can be done in future to avoid hardship for that age group?”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Will Quince, said:
“My honourable friend is a strong advocate for his constituents on the Isle of Wight.
“This government has already introduced transitional arrangements costing £1.1 billion. This concession reduced the proposed increase in state pension age for over 450,000 men and women and means that no woman will see her pension age change by more than 18 months relative to the original 1995 act timetable.
Article continues below this advertisement “For those experiencing hardship the welfare system continues to provide a safety net with a range of benefits tailored to individual circumstances.”
Approximately 10,000 Island women are affected by the changes. After the question Bob said:
“I will be pressing Ministers to find better ways to ensure that WASPI women get fairer treatment, and I will continue to stay in touch with the WASPI campaigners on the Island.”
I’ll be telling those WASPI women to stop scrounging. The changes were well publicised at the time of the 1993 Budget.
Scrounging? How bloody dare you!!! These women have worked hard all their lives, and have already contributed enough contributions to pay for their state pension!!! That comment is vile. What about people that have never worked, and have no intention of doing so? They are the scroungers!!!
those women were informed in the mid 1990’s that this policy was changing. All that is being asked of them, is that they keep the job they have or get a job until they are 66 – Just like the men are expected to do. That is equality right there.
Not all men born in the 1950’s have company pensions or savings. What about men who were born in the 1950’s and get made redundant in their early sixties – they are expected to get jobs. Why should these women expect to get state handouts six years earlier than the men born in the same timeframe – that is sex discrimination right there.
Women demanded equality with men and equal treatment and quite rightly received it. You cannot complain about getting a pension at 66, just like the men are, as that is equality. Why should men, who were born in the 1950s be expected to work six years more than women – that is not equality, that is blatant discrimination.
The average life expectancy has increased since the 1950’s and pensions at 60 is no longer realistic or affordable for this country’s taxpayers.
Are you helping out with childcare and providing care support daily to elderly parents as well as continuing to work until you are 66 Mr ‘None Given’ bet you are not!! No one is disagreeing with the rise in pension age for women just by the way it has been unfairly done.
How many women have very young children who are in their early sixties – none that is how many. The childcare argument doesn’t stack up.
in that case..what about men in their early sixties who help out with childcare and support elderly parents as well as continuing to work until they are 66? Plenty of men on their own with elderly parents.
It is fair – you cannot have equality and then be treated differently on things that favour you. You do not get to cherry pick equality.
You work until 66 just like the men do and you have had over 20 years notice to prepare.
Why should the rest of us, be expected to pay higher taxes just so some women can sit around at 60 instead of working to 66 like the men have to.
You are one of the reasons this country is in such a mess. I was never informed of an increase of age of retirement. I am 62, disabled and was made redundant last week. You find me a suitable job and I will do it. You’d have better luck than my former employer who tried.
I also care for 94 year old mum and three year old grt.
I started work at 15.
I think I am due my retirement now
Any man with the same circumstances as you, has to claim JSA or get a job until 66 – why should a man be discriminated against.
This is the 21st century -equal rights for pension ages for men, who were also born in the same timeframe as you.
no- the reason the country is in such a mess, is because of the legacy left behind from the generation who are just approaching the retirement ages now. The mess has been left behind for us to clear up. That would be your generation.
One of the first jobs, is to reduce the burden on the taxpayer, by no longer handing out money to women under 66, when men do not get any. That equals the playing field and cuts down on the forward cost curve for the country.
You’re missing the point, theyve already paid for their pensions its not a benefit or state handout. When I reached 60 I had already paid 45 years full rate contributions having worked since the age of 15. Ive never claimed a benefit in my life but expected my pension when I reached 60. Ive never received any notice from the government or DWP of the age increasing but we will wait and see what the judicial review has to say.
funny how over a million people responded to the information that was put out in the 1990’s and again in the 2000’s. Men have paid in 45 years of contributions and have to wait until 66 – this is equality in action.
No equal pay for women ! this would need to be addressed for equality in action .
Population of UK is 64 MILLION !!- the 1m you refer to are probably the bankers and the like who may have read the FT (NOT the popular press) where DWP placed their ads – they did not personally inform women as they did the men when their pension went up 1 year !! Call that equality ? I don’t!
Men do not have time out from work while pregnant or the bring very young babies up they do not suffer mental health issues due to female condition eg post natal depression or other female conditions – it is only in the last 10 years that child care arrangement s have improved so women can return to work with appropriate childcare & for many it cost almost a months salary to cover the costs – I started work at 17 and have over 37 years worth of contributions an adequate amount for my State Pension expected at 60 .
What a shame the 3 years I spent in the QARNNS did not count towards my SP I would have had to complete the 9 years I signed on to do. Where is the equality in that?
Let’s not forget that a lot of women worked Part time but still contributed in their own right towards their State Pension in fact Parental Responsibilities while bring up families was paid for by the Government so we have earns our State Pensions which are not A Benefit as the Government is now calling them.
The judicious review was a disgrace!!
*judicial*
It seems to me that you have ALL missed the point! The point is that women born in the 50s were not notified that the change was being made therefore didn’t have the time to plan for the difference it made! While we are talking about equality you also seem to have missed the point that men retired at 65 – equal rights would mean women would retire at that age too, but the government seems to have found a lucrative gravy train for another way to bleed the working class who after all are the stalwart of this country, and have raised the retirement age for All- equal rights again!- beyond the age of 66 and no doubt will continue to raise it again because we have just accepted it! Government aren’t concerned about their pension plan because it’s very well looked after, who else is entitled to a full pension after only 4 years of contributing . Let’s get it right it’s not about men versus women it’s being screwed over by the MPs who are supposed to be representing us! We should take a leaf out of France’s book they are protesting about a RISE to their retirement age of 60 .
there have been countless notifications of this change since it was announced in 1995 in the pensions act.
The fact of the matter is that pensions are unsustainable at 60, based on increased life expectancy. for example, The armed forces scheme for those who left before completing the full service, used to be able to claim their pension at 55, that changed to 60 in the armed forces pensions review in 2005 and a further review in 2015 changed it to 65. There is no right to appeal and the government stated that there would be no retrospective changes to this. (if I recall correctly – benefits may have been preserved, however timeframes have changed) Any one caught in a transition period is unfortunate, however, the axe had to fall somewhere and some will need to continue working – no exceptions. The last one was, anyone over 45 in april 2012, stayed in the previous scheme, all others moved over to the new one and must wait a further five years for any pension.
This is not just about some women being affected, there is widespread sweeping changes underway, to reduce the unsustainable forward liabilities of this country. The armed forces scheme is an unfunded liability on the balance sheet of the Uk which stands at £97bn as at the last look.
The reduction in the working tax base, due to the reduction in the number of young workers, means older people must work longer and take care of themsevles. The utopia promised at the outset of the welfare state of cradle to grave support is a long
lost plan.
the world is not the same place when those of retirement age were growing up and nor will it ever be again. The consensus now is, you work, you support yourself and do not expect any state pension to cover the cost of living.
expect to pay for everything in the 21st century and if you have no money, you can expect a meagre amount of support
from the state. The widening gap of the two tier system is evidence of this. Got money – you get access to goods and services, not
got any money, you get what little is left over.
It won’t be long until unemployment benefits are treated in the same way the american systems is. You earn unemployment credits as you work. If you lose your job and claim benefits, you only have up to the amount you earned during employment. As soon as your credits run out – thats it, nothing whatsoever. It does not pay to be out of work or skint in the USA.
The days of people living off the state in this country are numbered.
Youvdaid it “the world is not the same as it was when these women were growing up”. Too right. We didn’t have the ” equality” you go on about. We lived most of our lives in a completely different era – unrecognisable from that of today. So WE should not be the ones to have to have had our pension age increased, by SIX years over a period of less than 10. We lived and worked in the old world and should receive our pensions accordingly.
.
nope – why should a man, who is made redundant today and has no money to survive have to get a job when he is under 66 and without a pension. You have had over 20 years to prepare for this, stop trying to be treated differently after you fought so hard for equality over the last 40 years.
Correct! none given, are your eyes and ears closed to these comments or are u still not able to understand that we never had equality in the 50s and it’s our money…..
Pension is not a benefit,it’s a right.And we were told that we would retire at 60. The reason all of this hullabaloo is going on is that the government raided the national insurance pool of £271 billion that was in place to pay for pensions. They call it theft,robbery,filthy lucre,swindling,we’ve been swindled and the government knows it. So before you judge women fighting for their rights to their state pension,I’d encourage you to look at the facts of this matter,so that you can see for yourself why we are all fighting for what we are owed. #backto60 #waspi
As a 1959 born woman we did not get 20 years notice about the changes in our Pension many women were not notified by the DWP although they allegedly spent million on a campaign putting adverts in Women’s magazine s not every women’s had the means to buy magazines on a regular basis – what a waste of taxpayers money many women had lived at their home addresses for 30 years or more and were not informed so do not make judgements when you don’t know the facts.
So now we can expect the men to give birth and take care of the children and raise them at home. Im looking forward to seeing that in motion…oh..but wait..men cant. . So you men who require equality, can never ever be equal to women,unless of course the name of equality you all have wombs implanted and ample breasts to do the job of women.Ridiculous!!
Hear hear,so many people think we “Waspis” want to change it back to 60 years,so much in accurate information bandied about.
I’m still waiting for my notification, so no I didn’t realise. I’m all for equality and you are literally teaching grannies to suck eggs as we are the generation that fought for maternity pay, paternity pay, equality of pay (still waiting on that one) and now they are using equality to just avoid paying us for what we paid into. Well yes to equality but only when there has been equality of the working life leading up to the retirement age. We were excluded from pension schemes in our younger years and did not benefit from the benefits that are daughters, granddaughters, and sons and grandsons, now rightly enjoy. We are just an easy option spending cut. So we are not scroungers we want our contract fulfilled and to be treated with respect not told we are now a burden on society.
and plenty of men are in their sixties, who must get a job, when they have no money, no pension, no savings. There is no contract with the state over the pension, it is a benefit which can be adjusted, removed or altered by the government of the day.
nothing is ever set in stone – you reference fighting for all this equality, well this is equality in action – pensions start at the same age for all now and that is that.
Rubbish, life expectancy is continuing to drop. We never had the chance to pay for private pensions, we didn’t get equal pay for same work , we looked afterkids, our elders etc etc
no it isn’t – life expectancy now is far greater than decades ago. There are plenty of men who are in their sixties, who do not have private pensions, or savings. These guys were in low paid jobs, no pension or benefits. These men who have reached their early sixties now, are being made redundant from jobs they may have had or are currently unemployed. They have to claim job seekers and other benefits until they find a job as they cannot get a pension at 60.
Why should a woman of the same age as the man, who is also out of work today be able to claim a state pension at 60 and sit at home doing nothing, whilst the man has to go out and find work – that is blatant discrimination against men. Illegal in the 21st century.
You mr none given (SAYS IT ALL) NEED TO GO DO SOME RESEARCH. YOU SRE SPOUTING UTTER RUBBISH
Not all these women were informed huge numbers were not informed until they were almost 60 years of age. In fact I only found out by requesting a Pension Forecast at the age of 50.
My job working for a Government service was extremely stressful & I was in fact put in a position of making “ clinical judgements on clients health with huge responsibility” & earning a meagre salary .
The Injustice of the hike in an additional 6 years work for many women is the timeframe in which it was implement ie we did not have the time/ earning to save extra money or take out additional pensions.
Many of those who worked in Public Service were also penalised by opting out of State Earnings Related Pensions in the 1980s with consent, consequently those Pensions have decreased & we also set to receive less State Pension for opting out.
For many of us were unable to contribute to work related Pension schemes because we were working in low paid jobs – albeit being professionally qualified, lack of childcare provision in the 1980s & extremely high mortgage repayments.
Inequality in the workplace was a known fact that males doing the same jobs were paid far more than female counterparts.
Whilst we can appreciate and accept that men and women are living longer, in your 60s your health declines with lifelong chronic diseases exacerbating, such as heart lung conditions, joints wearing out from wear & tear, it takes longer for the body to recover & physically / mentally we are ageing and slowing down, many unable to hold down the jobs/work that they were so able to do in their 40s /50s.
It is unlikely the Government has taken these factors into account & implemented successive changes : affecting a cohort of women from 1950 onwards, with little consideration on the impact of their quality of life / plus the financial implications.
This Injustice is being felt by many 3.8 million women not just a few thousand, they will use their Voting Choices in the next Election to make their voices heard.
It would be ‘fairer’ if women had of had the same opportunities as men before getting to Pensionable age. Unfortunately that has never been the case. Men earned more money (than women doing the same job) and they didn’t have to take leave to give birth or bring children up, But most of us women have still managed to work the minimum number of ‘full years’ to qualify for SP, (35 years) and more, some women working 50 years, and paid our contributions despite any hardships. We may end up retiring at the same age as men, but we certainly won’t get as much pension per week as men, Fair? Equality? For it to be fair, it should be fair in every element, not just the elements that suit Mr. or Mrs. Anonymous above
You give up your pension!!!
Scrounging that’s a terrible thing to say I am one of them women who have never claim any benefits started work at 16yrs and still working and I never got told to work until 65yrs I think you should keep your comments to yourself
How dare you call me a scrounger. The changes werent publicised properly as the thousands of women involved will tell you. Ive paid nearly 50 years of contributions but will have to wait until Im 66 to receive my pension. Ive never claimed or “scrounged” a penny in my life. Lets hope you never need to scrounge off anyone when its time for you to retire and your pension age doesnt get pushed up 6 years!
Jeanette apparently we got told in a newspaper cartoon… 2 dogs sitting on a bench discussing pension schemes never did I get a letter, never got informed of any changes I’m nearly 63yrs and not worked for 4 years due to shoulder injuries and surgeries and arthritis in my hands, cant claim anything as my husband works minimum wage
men have paid in the same number of years and have to work until 66 – many men have never claimed a penny in benefits. Why should they be penalised and be expected to work 6 years longer than women – rank hypocrisy, demanding equality, back in the 1960’s, 1970’s and 1980s, getting it and then demanding to be treated differently to men on pension entitlements.
The very reason for the change to 65, is gender equality,off the back of the endless protests by women in the 60’s onwards
regarding equality.
More than 1 million leaflets had been requested by 1999 in response to the first campaign of awareness that began in 1998.
The DWP ran a second campaign between 2001 and 2003. They received over 1.1 million responses, via its website, phone calls and returned coupons from the letters sent out. 1.5 million leaflets were ordered by march 2002. They used tv, cinema as well to get the message out. They also used direct marketing to over 190,000 people who signed up for mailings about pensions.
How is it then, that I knew about this and am no where near retirement age. This change was first revealed in the 1995 pensions act.
Such a know it all coward hiding behind a silly name. Anyone who has their pension changed male or female would expect to have a personal letter from the provider detailing the changes. This did not happen. Further more there were not the saving options available if they had been as women have notoriously been paid wages far below those of men. Generally speaking.
You spout the so called ‘facts ‘ of the matter but in reality this information was hidden in cartoons and not delivered in a professional manner one would expect.
Many women have lost their jobs and homes because of this situation and it is a very sad situation.
These changes were rolled out too quickly which is why there is now poverty. Waspi do not say it should not be changed but argue it was too quick and no appropriate notice.
You need to hope that you don’t have to try and get a job when in your sixties.
no, those women gave up their jobs -their choice – did you not bother finding out for yourself or do you need to be spoon fed by the state. changes have been in progress for over 20 years, that is not to quick – it is extremely slow. there is not poverty – if a man loses his job at 61 and has no money, he cannot get a pension, he has to get a job and so should you.
Your attitude towards women is disgusting hope you don’t have a wife and have this attitude towards her.
I did as the Government advised 1950s did an apprenticeship in my 50s did it get me a full time job no just a zero hours contract – so with a heavy heart & arthritic joints due to a 35 year career as a professional nurse I am still doing care work & if I had stayed in the NHS I expect I would have been unable to continue paying my mortgage running a car, and paying my bill on a meagre Staff Nurses salary .
I’d like to know how an HR manager in 2012 encouraged my then 59 year old friend to take early retirement from her stressful job (and her health was suffering) as she only had one year to go for her state pension. An HR manager was unaware of the age hike as was my friend. I’ve had no official notification from DWP and I have HM revenue correspondence going back to the 1980s. None refering to SP age increasing.
Not all of us recieved leaflets and certainly not all of us had television to watch too busy working shifts – Sounds like you work for the DWP spouting all these facts & figures
Try being a Woman born in 1959 my retirement age was advanced twice in a very short space of time with far less than 10 years notice .
Cheeky so and so, I’m not a Waspi but in another group #backto60. We’ve ALL WORKED FROM BEING 15-16 YEARS OLD WE’VE PAID NI, TAX NOT BLED THE SYSTEM DRY LIKE LOADS OF AS YOU PUT IT SCROUNGERS, HOW DARE YOU PUT US ON THE SAME LEVEL OF PEOOLE WHO HAVE NEVER WORKED A DAY IN THEIR LIVES!!!!! YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED AND I HOPE YOU GET BIT ON YOUR BACKSIDE 10 TIMES HARDER THAN WE HAVE
You can’t change the past. We signed contracts of employment that stated we had to retire at 60. Women in the 50s were expected to care for their families, young and old and the men were expected to work and provide for them. That’s the way it was. Now these women are being called scroungers! How very very sad!
and that contract of employment will have been updated along the way and will definitely have been updated at the emergence of the equality act in 2010 – no one who signed a contract decades ago, can be made to retire at 60 – the law changed and so have those contracts of employment.
You had the right to accept the changes to the contract at the time, or dispute them and not sign, strike or find another job.
There are plenty of men who are in their early sixties who do not have savings, and are unemployed – they have to claim Job seekers allowance and find a job until age 66.
Are you in an occupational pensikn by any chance? If yes how would you react if you had been paying in for 30 49 50 years and without warning your pension provider , without notice , told you – BTW you can’t claim yoyr pension after all – you have to wait another 6 years so forget your retirement plans – HOW WOULD YOU FEEL.
Well the irony is – the government wouldn’t allow a private provider to do that !! And yet it believes it’s entitled to do exactly that with our State Pension , the provision of my which we entered into a contract for when we started working.
the govt have changed the retirement age for my generation from 65 to 70 – that is another five years – why should we, pay for women to sit around at our expense, when men of the same age cannot.
We don’t sit around at you expense I can’t believe your audacity
Well you obvious it Don’t affect you
So why do you give a Damn !
two reasons why I give a damn,
1. because I am not sitting by and watching men get discriminated against. I see men of 60 and over, struggling to get by, supporting families, looking after elderly parents and they have to work until 66 or be actively seeking work. Not one of them is whining and bleating about it and they paid in, 45 years and more. Why should they suffer the indignity of having to go out and slave away for another 6 years, when a woman in the same position is sat at home, getting a pension. That is discrimination.
2.Retirement for me was 65, then 66, then 68 now probably 70 – that is why I give a damn.
Actually you need to look at the social environment at the time- most women were not allowed to work when they became pregnant and lost their jobs and their ability to save. Socially women were encouraged not to work and stay at home and look after the children. It isn’t a simple matter and there are far more elements involved than you are taking into account. You appear to be an angry man with a grudge against women. This argument about the change in pension age is not about men v women it is about the Work and Pensions and their failings. It is not about keeping the pension age at 60 for women. It is about the the transition period.
irrelevant – a man in his sixties, who loses his job today, has to get another and may have no savings, whereas you think that a woman shouldn’t have to. nope that is discrimination in todays environment.
How dare u ,I have worked since I was 15 yrs old have a perfect sick record paid all my dues taxes NI etc. …
I was NEVER informed till a letter arrived 12 weeks before my set retirement date …this is my money I paid in not a Benift…
You do not know what your talking about. .
Rubbish.
The only doris stokes I know of is a dead clairvoyant..you must share the same powers ,because you seem to have known more than us 50,s ladies
“no woman will see her pension age change by more than 18 months relative to the original 1995 act timetable.”? would someone please check my maths?.. but iare there not 60 months between 60 years and 65 years? or is my grasp of basic maths a bit crook?
Where do they get their info,yes I’ve had to wait 6 years and 3 months for mine 75 months
https://www.express.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/1152009/pension-contributions-news-gender-pension-gap
Is “None given” another name for our old friend Anne Widdecombe?
Ignore that 1950’s born Suffersgets at your peril!
https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/52822/providing-financial-restitution-to-1950s-women?fbcl
correct decision today – court case dismissed
Right winger? No doubt about it…I am afraid ladies this is the attitude of the ‘ I’m alright jack brigade! Selfish, arrogant, patrionising and lacking compassion and empathy. They know very well that women of a certain age were discriminated against i.e. started work at 15 , extremely low wages, got penalised for having time off having children, trying to juggle work, child care, running a home ECT….later looking after own parents,then receiving a notification 4, years’ yes, 4 years before retirement, on top of the fact we weren’t allowed to pay full N.I. contribution in the years of child care! So, Mr or Mrs None Given…..either a Tory MP, or a brainwashed right wing follower or just a stupid, stupid person…..stop spouting you lies and propaganda! You vile, vile person
Why do they insist its 18mths .when in fact its 6 years